It is a deposition question that too often surprises lawyers and corporate-witness deponents. Upon return from a water or lunch recess, the deposing lawyer asks the witness: “So, tell me what you and your company’s lawyer discussed during the break?” Can the deposing lawyer ask that? Does the defending lawyer have an attorney-client privilege objection?

In-House and outside counsel focus their deposition preparation on reviewing the notice-of-deposition topics, selecting the most appropriate corporate employee for the deposition task, and preparing that witness with the boilerplate deposition ”dos and don’ts.” And while many lawyers defending depositions see every break as an opportunity to consult with the witness, they neglect to consider whether these in-deposition consultations are privileged and, importantly, to prepare the witness how to answer an out-of-the break question about those consultations.

Unfortunately, there is no uniform rule on whether lawyers may have privileged conversations with witnesses during deposition breaks. Some jurisdictions prohibit all during-the-break consultations except when necessary to assert an evidentiary privilege. Other jurisdictions reject this draconian rule for the more practical approach of permitting break-time discussions except when a question is pending. In my recent article, Protecting Attorney-Corporate Witness Consultations During Deposition Breaks, published by Inside Counsel, I explore the various rules on this issue and provide practical tips for preparing lawyers and witnesses for this inevitable happening.

You may access the article at this link. How does your jurisdiction–state or federal–handle this situation? Place your comments in this post–perhaps we can gather the local rules, judicial rulings, and local practices so that others may find answers in a single forum.

Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of demonstrative evidence at trial, assuming that evidence is determined to be relevant under Rule 401. Pursuant to Rule 403, a demonstrative exhibit may be excluded from the courtroom if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudice, its cumulative nature or if it is confusing or misleading.

Does the exhibit (1) relate to a piece of admissible substantive proof; (2) fairly and accurately reflect that substantive proof; and (3) is it sufficiently explanatory or illustrative to assist the jury? These are the questions used to establish a proper foundation for use at trial.

In addition, the exhibit should convey what it is designed to convey. For example, a computer enhanced photograph should not make an accident scene look better or worse than it actually was. Similarly, the demonstrative evidence should convey representational accuracy. The scale, dimensions and contours of the underlying evidence should all be accurately depicted. Today more than ever, the creative use of software permits trial counsel to manipulate demonstrative exhibits in ways often difficult to spot.

In an excellent article titled, “5 Demonstrative Evidence Tricks and Cheats to Watch Out For,” Ken Lopez, fouinder of A2L Consulting, provides a useful guide for spotting misleading charts and explains why they are misleading. Lopez discusses five such tricks (which are somewhat difficult to convey without having all of the graphics Lopez uses in his article to illustrate his points):

1. The Slippery Scale. This trick involves setting the the vertical y-axis on a graph in a narrow range that does not include “0.” By not including “0,” it is easy to make a relatively small change look enormous.

2. Compared to what? If the trial lawyer seeks to demonstrate a small change on a percentage basis, all he needs to do is carry the horizontal x-axis so that time is literally “on his side”

3. The Percentage Increase Trick. How many times have you heard someone talk about a 200% or 300% increase and really wonder what they mean?

4. Tricking the Eye with 3D Charts. Flat charts with no depth or 3D aspect are harder to trick the viewer with, so always scrutinize your opponent’s charts when a third dimension is introduced. On a pie chart, when a slice of the pie (e.g., the percentage of customers injured by a purportedly defective product) is closer to the viewer, it looks much bigger.

5. Misleading Emotional Imagery. Putting an image of a homeless person in the background of a chart about increasing homelessness is designed to evoke emotion. Similarly, showing an oil-covered bird in the background in an explanation of how much oil was spilled in an accident does not add to one’s understanding of the amount of oil spilled, but seeks to trigger an emotional response in the viewer.

Perhaps the single most important Rule 403 objection you can make in a jury trial is the exhibit’s capacity to generate an emotional response such as pity, revulsion or contempt. Under these circumstances, the capacity to evoke emotion far outweighs the value of the evidence on the issues before the court and exclusion is appropriate.

I came across a post on the Lawyerist on the question whether good legal writing is inherited or developed. Putting aside that debate (the answer is both, by the way), it occurred to me that there are two steps that mediocre legal writers can take to immediately improve their writing.

There are actually three steps. The first is to realize your legal writing needs help and care enough to try to improve it. There are lots of advocates who slog through an entire career filing nearly incomprehensible briefs. Don't be that lawyer. Take pride in your product. The fact you have read this far, rather than clicking on to something more compelling, means you are at least curious, or you just got an Apple and haven't figured out how to navigate away from this page.

The first sure-fire way to improve your legal writing is to strive to use an active rather than a passive voice. It's ironic that I spent several (ok 6, but who's counting) years getting a degree in Literature-Writing from a really solid university, but it wasn't until I was a staff member on Law Review that I truly began to understand the importance of active voice. If you missed the special torture that is editing a legal journal, or were otherwise never trained to write in active versus passive voice, I'll provide a very easy example to illustrate the difference. Using passive voice, a lawyer might construct a sentence that reads: A man, woman and two children were shot by the defendant. Contrast that sentence with one written using active voice: The defendant shot a man, woman and two children.

See? Simplest thing in the world. But, even those of us who generally strive to use active voice occasionally fall into passive voice. The key is to recognize when you're doing it and decide whether the sentence you've created could be improved by changing the voice.

The second way to immediately improve your legal writing is equally simple. Pare back the number of words you use to say what you're trying to say. This was something my mentor taught me when I was a baby lawyer and I've generally tried to adhere to the principle, at least when writing to a court or opposing counsel. Basically, every word in any sentence should be necessary. Nothing extraneous. This will automatically take care of the tendency to include "herein" and other pointless words. It also forces the writer, you, to think about what you're trying to say and how to say it in the clearest way possible. Judges and clerks appreciate clarity.

Now. This second "way to immediately improve your legal writing" is not a rule. It's just an approach. And, it's an approach I freely disregard when I want to emphasize something through repetition or diction (word choice). Hell, I often write entire paragraphs in the passive voice and include a lot of extra words. But, when I do it, I do it purposely, usually for effect. Otherwise, I strive to write clean, spare, Hemingway-like sentences, in the active voice, as free as possible of legalese.* (*Ok, I'll admit an affinity for ancient latin phrases like sua sponte, ab initio, inter alia. I know that writers who know what they're talking about, as opposed to armchair poseurs (who me?), have zero tolerance latin phrases. If I give in to the urge to use them in an early draft, I almost always delete them.)

There. If you struggle with your legal writing, try these two suggestions. I guarantee you'll see results.

We've all been there, wondering when we'll get "our shot" – perhaps a high-profile role at trial, taking an important expert deposition, or simply face time with the firm's largest client. And, despite the insecurities that naturally accompany the rigors of a demanding job, most of us are probably less concerned about our capability for handling high-level responsibilities as we are about simply getting opportunities to develop the skills they require.

While there is obviously no single path to skills-development, effective leadership, and internal promotion, one important and often overlooked opportunity for a young lawyer to advance his or her career is by mastering the role of local counsel. In fact, as anyone who regularly serves as or manages local counsel in large national litigation will tell you – good local counsel is critical for the defense. Good local counsel not only gets work done, but adds insight and perspective to the litigation, and value to the defense team.

This article is just a starting point. But the best practices offered below – framed under six objectives, to provide context – should take you a long way toward demonstrating to law firms and clients around the country that your firm has the capable and dependable people they need as local counsel for their matters.

Objective #1: Be Helpful

The beginning of any local counsel work – often occurring at or near the time a lawsuit is filed in your home jurisdiction – provides an immediate opportunity to help national counsel with the case. Without being asked, provide information to national counsel about the venue, judge, opposing counsel, jury pool, deadlines, and any important local rules governing the initial pleadings. Some of this information can be obtained quickly by sending a short email to the attorneys in your office. You can also be helpful by sending national counsel copies of example pleadings or motions that may be relevant, and by offering to complete and file the necessary paperwork for national counsel to be admitted pro hac vice.

As the case progresses, continue to anticipate the needs of national counsel, and consider that national counsel may be busy with multiple cases and deadlines across many jurisdictions. Clearly label your emails to remind them of the specific case and topic for discussion. Responding quickly to emails and completing assignments early is crucial. Important briefs, correspondence, discovery, etc., will often need to be reviewed by several layers of lawyers from national counsel on up to the client. This inevitably takes time, and an important brief received by national counsel the day before it is due will surely frustrate them.

Objective #2: Determine Your Role

Not every local counsel role is the same. It can range from signing the initial pleadings to first chair trial counsel. Usually, local counsel's role is somewhere in between. Depending on the client, there may even be written guidelines and expectations for local counsel. Be sure to request any such guidelines as early as possible. Absent formal guidelines, however, the role and responsibilities of local counsel may be driven by such factors as the busyness of the litigation, personalities involved, and specific skills of the lawyers, to name a few. With this in mind, local counsel should (1) work quickly to determine his/her role; (2) stay within the confines of that role; and (3) be ready for that role to change. Flexibility is key, as is a proper respect for the relationship between national counsel and the client. Local counsel work should not be used as a platform to establish one's own business connection with the client. You will gain respect from all members of the defense team when you perform your role well. And when in doubt concerning your role, just remember the first objective: be helpful.

Objective #3: Be Proactive (within reason)

This objective goes hand-in-hand with determining one's role. Once you know your role, make sure you do not get lazy. Monitor the docket and let national counsel know right away about any filings. Send reminders when deadlines are near. Provide regular updates, even when there is seemingly nothing new to report. (The lack of developments in a case can nonetheless be significant. And, at least everyone will know you are on top of things.) As early as possible, ask national counsel for educational materials concerning the subject of the litigation that they think would be helpful for the performance of your responsibilities. Anticipate the needs for depositions or hearings, such as reserving conference rooms and court reporters, and recommending food, lodging, and transportation. Of course, you should not "overwork" the case. But a proactive approach to your representation will instill confidence in you and your firm, and increase your value to the team.

Also, just one quick piece of advice: draft your updates with the client in mind. You likely will be expected to report to national counsel on updates in the case, who then has the discretion to determine whether or not the information needs the client's attention. Draft your email so that it can be cut and pasted into a new email by national counsel, or simply forwarded to the client. This is helpful to national counsel, and can provide an opportunity for national counsel to commend your good work.

Objective #4: Give Advice

You can add great value to the defense team by being more than a taskmaster. Local counsel is often hired for their judgment and perspective on issues, in addition to the tasks necessitated by the location of the case filing. Do not shy away from giving an informed opinion, especially when asked. Whether working directly for a client, firm partner, or outside law firm, providing advice is a necessary part of our job. Think carefully, articulate your thoughts, and give your advice. Experienced lawyers know this is difficult, and will appreciate your input.

Objective #5: Build Relationships

One of the benefits of serving as local counsel is that you can be introduced to new clients, other law firms, and experts. Try to take advantage of these opportunities to build relationships. These connections will make you and your firm more valuable for future work, in any capacity.

Objective #6: Remember the Ethical Rules

Do not forget that you could be held responsible for the decisions of national counsel, depending on how they are carried out. Although you are acting under the direction of another person, you are still bound by the rules of professional conduct. (See Model Rule of Professional Conduct ["MRPC"] 5.2(a)). Similarly, a lawyer should not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so. (See MRPC 5.5(a)).

And do not forget Civil Rule 11, under which your signature certifies that you read the document, believe there is good ground to support it, and that it is not meant to harass or delay. Rule 11 can be particularly troublesome for local counsel when national counsel provides documents just before they need to be filed, and expects local counsel to simply sign and file them. You should carefully review documents before they are filed, and work respectfully with national counsel to ensure there is time to do so. While the implications of these ethical rules are beyond the scope of this article, they are nonetheless offered for consideration.

In short, be helpful, be proactive, stay within the confines of your role, and be careful. For the young lawyer who takes advantage of such opportunities, serving as local counsel can be a very rewarding experience.

Justin Rice is an Associate with Tucker Ellis LLP in Cleveland, Ohio. He practices primarily in the areas of products liability and business litigation. As a member of Tucker Ellis's Medical & Pharmaceutical Liability Practice Group, Justin works with law firms around the country in both national and local counsel capacities, defending manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. He can be reached at justin.rice@tuckerellis.com.

In addition to their work for their own clients in their own areas of expertise, some professionals also serve as expert witnesses in litigation. They employ their knowledge and experience in their chosen field to analyze issues and render opinions for one or more parties to a lawsuit. Like in any other aspect of their work, a professional serving as an expert can act negligently and make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes cause litigation problems for the party the professional has been retained to assist. What happens when the professional is sued for his or her work as an expert? What are the public policy implications of holding an expert witness liable for mistakes made in the litigation or conversely rendering the witness immune from suit?

A professional generally owes his or her client a duty of care to use the same amount of care, skill and proficiency commonly used by ordinarily skillful, careful and prudent professionals in the professional's community. See, e.g., Michaels v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 257 P.3d 532, 542 (Wash. 2011); Murphy v. A.A. Mathews, a Division of CRS Group Engineers, Inc., 841 S.W.2d 671, 674 (Mo. 1992). Clearly, a professional retained to perform work as an expert witness in litigation owes his or her client a duty of care – a duty that can certainly be breached.

Some jurisdictions, however, have held that an expert witness's actions and testimony performed during the course of litigation are privileged. In those jurisdictions, that privilege derives from the doctrine of witness immunity.

The Doctrine of Witness Immunity

As the Missouri Supreme Court has noted: "An immunity is a freedom from suit or liability. The underlying premise of all immunities is that 'though the defendant might be a wrongdoer, social values of great importance require[d] that the defendant escape liability.'" Id. (quoting Prosser and Keeton on Torts 1032 (5th ed. 1984)). The immunity for witnesses in judicial proceedings from liability for damages related to their testimony originated in English common law.See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 332 (U.S. 1983)(citation omitted). The basis for the immunity was the concern that, if subject to subsequent liability, a witness may self-censor his or her testimony – either by altering their testimony for fear or liability or failing to appear to testify at all. Id. This is not to say courts have not considered the potential for harm resulting from false testimony. Rather, courts have noted that the reliability of a witness's testimony "is ensured by his oath, the hazard of cross-examination and the threat of prosecution for perjury." Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc., 776 P.2d 666, 667 (Wash. 1989) (citing Briscoe, 460 U.S. at 332).

The immunity first arose in the context of defamation actions based on statements made by witnesses or other parties in the context of a court proceedings. Murphy, 841 S.W.2d at 675. Different jurisdictions, however, extended the immunity in varying degrees based on the circumstances of the defamatory statement. Id. at 675-76.

Does the Doctrine Apply to Expert Witnesses?

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that witness immunity is particularly designed to protect and encourage disinterested lay witnesses. MacGregor v. Rutberg, 478 F.3d 790, 792 (7th Cir. 2007). The court noted that because "they have no stake in the case and cannot be paid more than a nominal fee for testifying, [lay witnesses] would be highly reluctant to testify if the threat of a defamation suit hung over their heads." Id. But what about an expert witness hired specifically to provide opinion testimony in a judicial proceeding? Are they entitled to the same protection?

The Majority View Is No Immunity

The majority of courts to consider the issue in that context have held that so-called "friendly experts" are not entitled to blanket immunity for their work in preparing and communicating their opinions in litigation. See, e.g., Marrogi v. Howard, 805 So. 2d 1118, 1128-29 (La. 2002). InMarrogi, the Supreme Court of Louisiana analyzed whether the policy arguments used to justify the witness immunity doctrine apply in the context of a claim against an expert hired by the plaintiff in the underlying matter. It noted that the objective of encouraging forthright testimony in court "is not advanced by immunizing the incompetence of a party's retained expert witness simply because he or she provides expert services, including testimony, in relation to a judicial proceeding." Id. at 1131.

Some of the courts that have held that hired experts are not immune from suit by their client have based their reasoning on the distinction between the expert's testimony and the work leading up to that testimony. In Pollock v. Panjabi, 781 A.2d 518 (Conn. Super. 2000), the court held that an expert witness was not entitled to such immunity, noting that the plaintiffs were not complaining about what the expert said; rather, the plaintiffs asserted that their hired expert failed to "perform work as agreed upon, according to scientific principles as to which there are no competing schools of thought." Id. at 525-26; see also Murphy, 841 S.W.2d at 680-81("These experts do not usually act solely as witnesses, but perform substantial pretrial work."). The court held that there must be a nexus between the claimed immunity, the fact-finding function of the court and the interest in having the expert speak freely. Id. at 526.

California also recognizes the exception of friendly experts from the protection of witness immunity. In Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co., 5 Cal. App. 4th 392 (1992), the court held in favor of the plaintiff company which had sued experts it hired to perform litigation support accounting work. The plaintiff's underlying suit was dismissed allegedly based on negligent work performed by the experts. Id. at 395-96. In its opinion, the court raised the issue of access to the courts as a policy reason in favor of the exception. Id.at 403-04. Citing the facts of the case before it, the court reasoned that if an expert's negligence caused dismissal of the client's suit before trial, granting immunity to that expert would not expand access to the courts. Id. at 404.

The Minority Viewpoint: Immunity For Friendly Experts

While the majority of jurisdictions to consider the issue have found that expert witnesses should not be immune from suit by their client for negligence, some courts have reasoned that the immunity should attach in such situations. The most prevalently cited opinion on this side of the issue is Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc., 776 P.2d 666 (Wash. 1989). In that case, the Supreme Court of Washington held in favor an engineer sued by a client for negligently rendering opinions on damages issues in prior litigation. In addressing many of the same policy issues discussed in the cases listed above, the Bruce court found that immunity of experts would encourage them to be more careful in their work and result in more reliable testimony. Id. at 670. It stated:

Civil liability is too blunt an instrument to achieve much of a gain in reliability in the arcane and complex calculations and judgments which expert witnesses are called upon to make. The threat of liability seems more likely to result in experts offering opinions motivated by litigants' interests rather than professional standards and in driving all but

the full-time expert out of the courtroom.

Id. The court also discussed the alleged distinction between the expert's testimony and the work leading up to the testimony. It held that to grant immunity solely to the expert's testimony but not to the basis for that testimony would undermine the policies underlying the immunity in the first place. Id. at 672; see also Panitz v. Behrend, 632 A.2d 562, 565 (Pa. Super Ct. 1993).

Some courts have held in favor of an expert witness who has failed to provide helpful testimony to his or her client at trial, though not based on the doctrine of witness immunity.See Griffith v. Harris, 116 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Wis. 1962)(noting that "a contract [between a party and a witness] creating an obligation not only to appear but also to testify in a certain manner on behalf of a party to a lawsuit, is against public policy");Shaffer v. Donegan, 585 N.E.2d 854, 860 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)(same); Curtis v. Wolfe, 513 N.E.2d 1139, 1141-42 (Ill. App. 1987)(same).

What About Immunity From Disciplinary Actions?

Even in jurisdictions that afford professionals witness immunity, the risk of a disciplinary action – as opposed to civil liability – may still exist. In Kentucky State Bd. of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors v. Curd, -- S.W.3d --, 2012 WL 512403 (Ky. App. Feb. 17, 2012), the Court addressed the argument made by an engineer who had appealed a suspension handed down by his state's licensure board for giving dishonest testimony as an expert witness in a quiet title action. Id. at *9-*10. The engineer argued that subjecting experts to disciplinary action based on their testimony would affect experts' opinion and have a consequent chilling effect on the administration of justice. Id. at *9. The Court rejected this argument, distinguishing between an expert being sued civilly and one being subjected to professional discipline pursuant to a state statute in administrative proceeding. Id.at *10.

Conclusion

While the majority of jurisdictions who have considered the argument have found no immunity for friendly experts, there is a valid position – outlined in the Bruce opinion – that immunity should apply if this issue arises in a jurisdiction that has been silent on the issue. Because many courts have never expressed an opinion on the matter, the arguments raised in Bruce should be available to many attorneys defending professionals in this context.

Demonstrative exhibits are an integral part of any trial presentation.They are the tools that help us educate the jury about products, teach them about complex technical issues and understand the evidence.They can illustrate salient points that could be difficult to explain concisely and clearly, and can refute claims of our opponents.If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video or reenactment may be worth millions of words.The importance of the effective use of demonstrative aids cannot be overstated.

Demonstrative aids can run the gamut from simple drawings made on chalkboards by witnesses during their testimony to a high tech accident reconstruction video presentation. They may consist of several blowups of significant photographs, or enlargement of pertinent documents. The technology available today permits a wide range of possibilities, including highlighting text in a document and during testimony, enlarging and pulling out important language from a document and marking the document on the screen to direct the jury’s attention to a specific part of an exhibit.

It may be important to demonstrate how a machine works, or how technology is used.It may be necessary to depict the biomechanical possibilities in a given accident.Videos, computer simulations and other technologies can be very effective to bolster your case.Timelines are a favorite demonstrative aid and with modern technology, the timeline can be “created” during witness testimony before the jury’s eyes.

There are many creative and effective ways to create engaging demonstrative aids. The Trial Techniques SLG will take up the topic at the upcoming DRI Products Liability meeting in Las Vegas (April 11-13). If you have any particular questions about this topic that you would like to be considered for further discussion in Las Vegas, please post.

It is not surprising that plaintiffs claiming to be injured in auto accidents are often evasive about their prior medical history and treaters. In an article published by the American Medical Association, “Examinee-Reported History Is Not a Credible Basis for Clinic,” Robert Barth, Ph.D., cites numerous studies confirming that claimants tend to misrepresent their pre-claim functioning as having been “superhuman,” and distort their reported history in a fashion that potentially inflates the financial compensation for their claims.

This forces defense attorneys to utilize alternative methods in their ongoing attempt to locate the pre-accident smoking gun:

Jail medical records: In a recent Michigan case, a plaintiff admitted he previously suffered a closed head injury from a prior auto accident. However, he claimed that he never had seizures before a subsequent auto/pedestrian incident, and was not taking Depakote for seizures. There was a gap in his post-MVA treatment, and it was discovered he was incarcerated. Indeed, the jail medical records confirmed a year before the accident that he suffered a seizure and was taking Depakote, an anti-seizure medication, for his condition.

MasterTrace: This service bears fruit, particularly when a plaintiff has no prior history of health insurance, and has lived in other states. MasterTrace performs an extensive canvass profile of hospitals and pharmacies within a certain designated radius and matches up with the plaintiff’s background information to come up with potential “hits.” However, this service can be expensive, depending on the nature of the search.

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP): A PDMP is an electronic database that collects designated data on substances dispensed to a patient in the state. Thirty-seven states currently have PDMPs. On September 1, 2011, pharmacists in Florida began submitting data to the recently implemented Florida Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. Across the country, access to this information is restricted to physicians and law enforcement personnel. While defense attorneys are not able to subpoena the information, if you are lucky, the plaintiff’s treating physician may request a PDMP if he or she suspects drug abuse or doctor shopping. Generally, the physician will not supply a copy of the PDMP in a standard subpoena unless requested, or if you happen to come across it during a review of the actual file in a doctor’s deposition. If you do land such a report, it may provide an abundance of information, including prior treaters and pharmacies, and demonstrate evidence of pre-accident drug abuse.

Veteran Administration Records: Do not skim over the fact that a plaintiff served in the military 40 years ago. He or she may still be treating and receiving prescriptions from your local VA hospital. Further, if a plaintiff is receiving a pension from the VA, he or she periodically has to undergo a disability determination, and fill out paperwork. It is always compelling to see what the plaintiff tells the VA, as compared to Social Security Disability, workers’ compensation, and plaintiff's own treaters during the identical time frame.

Health Insurance Cards: Somewhere in every treater’s medical record, hospital’s intake sheet, or hidden deep within a prior auto accident claim file is a copy of plaintiff’s health insurance card (if he or she has one). If located, these health insurance records may provide a precise history of all prior hospital, doctor and pharmacy visits.

A plaintiff is not going to hand you his or her pre-accident history on a platter, so expect to do some extra digging. With enough persistence, you may ultimately discover a wealth of information that could undermine the plaintiff’s credibility and case.

Robert Abramsonis an associate in the law firm of Kopka, Pinkus, Dolin & Eads in Farmington Hills, MI. He specializes in first-party, third-party and uninsured motorist claims in Michigan. Mr. Abramson is a member of DRI's Young Lawyers and Insurance Law Committees.

If you spend some time looking at the statistics, you will see the number of jury trials is swiftly declining.Many states and organizations have recognized the decline, voicing concerns about the resulting impact on the judicial system, the public and lawyers.The Florida Bar created a special taskforce, the Special Committee to Study the Decline in Jury Trials (“Committee”), to research and analyze the trend, determine the root cause of the decline and recommend a course of action to the Florida Board of Governors to minimize the impact of this decline.The Committee issued its final report in December 2011.The full report is available at floridabar.org by clicking “About the Bar,” followed by “Committees” and then “Special.”

The Committee reviewed, among other published studies, Professor Marc Galanter’s article The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts (1 J. Empirical Legal Studies 459 (2004)).When you view the statistics, the decline is apparent, and staggering.For example, in 1962, 11.5% of 50,320 civil federal court dispositions were by trial.In 2002, there were only 1.8% dispositions by trial, out of 258,876.In Florida civil cases, 1.6% of total civil cases (155,407) were resolved by jury in 1986.By 2009, the percentage reduced to .2%, while the number of civil cases increased to 401,463.

According to the Committee, there are several reasons why jury trials suffered declines.For civil cases, the rise of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms contributed markedly.The expense of trials is always another common deterrent.Another factor is the time it takes to bring a case to trial.Despite the reduction in number, it was noted that jury trials have become more complex -- longer and more complicated.

The declines have not been without negative impacts.With fewer jury trials, fewer people participate in the judicial system as jurors. Jury service helps educate the public about the justice system.It is a simple way for the average citizen to play a role in governmental decision making.If the nearly all disputes are resolved privately, via mediation or arbitration, rather than in an open courtroom, the public’s perception of the justice system will become further skewed.

The decline in jury trials also contributes to reduced funding to the court system, as the decline itself may be viewed as a reason to fund less.This contributes to a never ending cycle of funding and less independence of the judiciary.

One of the greatest impacts, however, is the effect on new lawyers.A lawyer learns best by first-hand practice.With less opportunity to conduct a trial, lawyers must look to other training which will always be less adequate than the real thing.The new lawyer ends up feeling uncomfortable and unsure regarding his or her skills.When the opportunity finally arises, the lawyer may shy away from the experience because he or she simply does not know how to try a case.

The Committee recommended several measures, including full funding of the courts. To reduce the impact, the Committee also suggested training and mentoring programs for young lawyers, such as certified legal intern programs or State Attorney/ Public Defender internships. The Committee further recommended techniques to the bench to more efficiently administer judicial duties, with less cost to litigants, such as streamlining discovery and encouraging the use of expedited jury trials.

DRI created the Jury Preservation Task Force to examine this federal and state vanishing jury trial phenomenon and report on its findings, which will be published in a future edition of For the Defense.

The vanishing jury trial is perhaps one of the most important issues facing the civil justice system today. Civil trials have declined in federal courts from 12% in 1984 to less than 1% in 2010. Statistics from state courts, though more difficult to obtain, generally show the same trends. The issue has been widely studied, and while the fact of the vanishing trial is clear, the reasons for the decline are less obvious. Several theories have been advanced, ranging from a dramatic rise in case filings and underfunded court systems to the ever increasing cost of litigation and the success of alternative dispute resolution.

In 2010, DRI created the Jury Preservation Task Force (JPTF) to examine and inform the membership of issues impacting civil jury trials. The work of the JPTF is now underway. In 2011, the JPTF conducted multiple surveys concerning issues impacting civil jury trials. Survey respondents included State and Local Defense Organization (SLDO) leaders and participants in both the DRI Insurance and Corporate Counsel Roundtables. The JPTF is now in the process of examining the survey results along with the significant body of research available on the vanishing jury trial and the initiatives being proposed to address the problem.

The JPTF, in collaboration with DRI’s Trial Tactics Committee, will publish the results of its findings in a future edition of For the Defense. Then we will ask for your help. Stay tuned!

Law.com has an interesting blog post about a recent defense tactic in the case of an alleged “mouse in a can of soda,” you can find the article here. Basically, the defendant is taking a scientific stand regarding the presence of a mouse allegedly sealed in a can of soda. Essentially, they are saying that a whole mouse would not be present in a sealed can, because the acid in the drink would have turned it to jelly. The beverage giant may need to start competing with jelly and jam companies. The position may be technically viable but it appears be a public relations nightmare. Do you think this is an effective stance? Does it do more harm than good? Let us know your thoughts.

Jobby is an associate in the Oklahoma City firm of Hiltgen & Brewer, P.C.